David Hume (1711-1776) PhD Edit: Satire Und Theology Version

Saint Petersburg, trekearth

David Hume (1711-1776) PhD Edit

David Hume: Preface

Blackburn describes David Hume (1711-1776) the Scottish philosopher, historian and writer as the most influential modern naturalist. Blackburn (1996: 179). Hume would also be known as an empiricist and Blackburn correctly notes Hume as a key figure in the Enlightenment. Blackburn (1996: 179). The following is edited material where I dealt with Hume within my Doctorate. I add more material for this article.

David Hume on Theodicy

David Hume (1779)(2004) discusses the danger of traditional superstition in religious presentations, Hume (1779)(2004: 7) and doubtless a reasonable, open-minded, philosophical approach from a theist would be far more helpful within a theodicy. He also warns against theistic claims of being able to adequately understand the Supreme Being, if there is one. Hume (1779)(2004: 21-27). This Being’s attributes would be ‘incomprehensible and it basically impossible for the theist to understand the nature of this being. Hume (1779)(2004: 21). If Hume is correct, constructing a theodicy would be largely meaningless. To counter this problem, Biblical Revelation would be required in order that God reveals self in context of the issue of theodicy.

May 29, 2011

Within my PhD research Augustine’s free will approach to theodicy made use of Scripture and yet was also philosophical. Plantinga’s free will defence was philosophical. Feinberg’s sovereignty theodicy was both Biblical and philosophical as was my sovereignty approach which was not formally presented separately but was basically embedded within my work. My project with the use of exemplars and my own earned expertise did not fall prey to Hume’s criticisms of constructing largely meaningless theodicy. This is not a claim of intellectual perfection by any means.

David Hume on God’s Sovereignty

Phillips explains that a Reformed view is that God has the freedom to act as he wants. Phillips (2005: 22). This would be God’s sovereign providence, but Hume is skeptical of this concept. Hume (1779)(2004: 50). People throughout the world view certain evils, which may be rectified in other regions of the world or in the future, and understand these good events as being connected to general laws and the existence of a good deity. Hume suggests that these are superstitions, and questions whether in many cases a ‘cause can be known but from its known effects?’ The idea is then presented that if God is benevolent his providence should lead to a world without suffering and wickedness. Hume (1779)(2004: 50).

May 29, 2011

This is the logical problem of evil. ‘The idea is then presented that if God is benevolent his providence should lead to a world without suffering and wickedness’. Much of the problem of evil and theodicy discussion within my thesis concerning free will, sovereignty, and soul-making presentations and atheistic counters concerns the logical problem of evil and also the gratuitous problem of evil. Other theses, books and articles may deal with various approaches, perhaps of other religions and worldviews. For example, hypothetically, evil could be denied as a reality.

Below is edited from previous work, but is a good summary of the major views to briefly answer Hume:

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S. Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

Within On Free Choice of the Will, Augustine presents his free will theodicy, theodicy being an explanation for the problem of evil in a theistic universe. Augustine was somewhat influential on Alvin C. Plantinga’s free will defence in the 1970’s. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 26). Augustine reasons that God is not the cause of evil, but rather human beings create the problem when they choose to follow their own temporal ways rather than God’s. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 3). A possible problem with Augustine’s view is that he blames the problem of evil on human choice but at the same time places a heavy emphasis on God’s sovereignty in creation. Augustine’s view on human free will appears libertarian while, as John Feinberg points out, Augustine’s concept of God’s sovereignty would seemingly require some form of determinism. Feinberg (1994: 98).

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

Within this text Feinberg presents a defence which could be labeled a sovereignty theodicy. My personal sovereignty theodicy is embedded within my MPhil and more so my PhD and is somewhat similar to Feinberg’s work. As well as presenting his own perspective Feinberg does a thorough job of reviewing various theistic and atheistic concepts on the problem of evil. He reasons that God does not presently eliminate the problem of evil because to do so would violate divine plans and human development. Feinberg (1994: 130). I found Feinberg’s explanation of this a bit repetitive and it would perhaps be good for him to have speculated on God’s reasons for willingly allowing evil in more specific terms as I have to some degree in my work.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Plantinga successfully demonstrates that a free will defence is logical and reasonable. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 28). He speculates that the price of God creating a universe with significantly free creatures is that wrong actions will inevitably occur leading to the problem of evil. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 30). Plantinga’s free will approach is not primarily theological as is Augustine’s and therefore offers a different but somewhat related perspective. 

A question arises if Plantinga has really successfully answered the objection of theistic critics such as Feinberg, and atheists such as J.L. Mackie on why God could not simply create human beings who were significantly free and never committed wrong actions. I believe that God could have created significantly free human beings, or at least human-like creatures that only committed right actions. Perhaps God desired to create human beings that would ultimately posses a greater spiritual maturity than Adam and Eve prior to the fall because those restored in Christ would have experienced sin, the problem of evil, death and the atoning work and resurrection of Christ. Quite possibly restored human beings would ultimately be more spiritually mature and valuable to God than persons that never knew what it was like to disobey God and experience evil. I would also point out that Biblically speaking the angels that did not fall would seemingly be significantly free and have not committed wrong actions.

HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.

Hick rejects Augustinian and Calvinistic views on theodicy, and instead supports what he views as the Irenean position. Hick (1970: 221). Ramsay (2004: 2). Hick also rejects conservative Christian doctrines and instead favours the idea of universalism. Hick (1970: 172). Hick (1970: 381). He reasons that human beings were made immature and capable of committing wrong human actions in order that God eventually can bring all persons to the creator through soul-making. Hick (1970: 292). I can accept that some type of soul-making is used by God in the development of believers, but without the atoning work of Christ and resurrection within a Christian tradition we do not have a revealed divine means of salvation and are left to speculate on how God should or could save persons, as Hick speculates.

David Hume on Consciousness

Consciousness is not a new intellectual subject, as David Hume writes in the article A Treatise of Human Nature’ that most philosophers think personal identity begins with consciousness, which is reflected thought or perception. Although the exact nature of human consciousness is not known, it does work with human thought and perception. Hume found no theory of consciousness provided him with intellectual satisfaction. Rene Descartes (1596-1650) in Conversation with Burman, defined consciousness as the possible internal source of knowledge concerning a person’s own thoughts or mental occurrences. To have consciousness was to be able to understand one’s own thoughts.

I dealt with more philosophical/scientific journals in my PhD in regard to consciousness for post-viva revisions and documented some of the work in this post below. From my reading, academically consciousness and the related subject of desires, still lacked much intellectual clarity even as they were being studied within the fields of philosophy, religion, psychology and psychiatry.

Saturday, September 19, 2020 PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD

---

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. 

AUGUSTINE (398-399)(1992) Confessions, Translated by Henry Chadwick, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia. 

AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia. 

AUGUSTINE (426)(1958) The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books. 

AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. 

AUGUSTINE (427b)(1997) On Christian Teaching, Translated by R.P.H. Green, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996)  Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy,  Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BLOCHER, HENRI (1994) Evil and the Cross, Translated by David G. Preston, Leicester, InterVarsity Press.

DESCARTES, RENE (1648)(1996) Conversation with Burman, in Eric Lormand: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

GIERER, ALFRED (2003)‘Brain, mind, and limitations of a scientific theory of human consciousness’, Preprint of a contribution to the symposium: Proteus im Spiegel-Kritische Theorie des Subjekts im 20, Tubingen, Max-Planck-Institute Biology, Tubingen.

GUTMANN, JAMES (1845)(1936) ‘Introduction’ in SCHELLING, F.W.J. (1845)(1936) Schelling, Of Human Freedom, Translated by James Gutmann, The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago.

HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.

HICK, JOHN (1978) ‘Present and Future Life’, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 71, Number 1-2, January-April, Harvard University.

HICK, JOHN (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993) ‘Afterword’ in GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993) The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Louisville, Kentucky, John Know Press.

HICK, JOHN (1994) Death and Eternal Life, Louisville, Kentucky, John Knox Press.

HICK, JOHN (1999) ‘Life after Death’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press.

HUME, DAVID (1739-1740)(1973) ‘A Treatise of Human Nature’, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

HUME, DAVID (1779)(2004) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Lawrence, Kansas.

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (2000) Warranted Christian Belief, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

SCHELLING, F.W.J. (1845)(1936) Schelling, Of Human Freedom, Translated by James Gutmann, The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago.

---

Originally published 20110601 on Blogger, with slight edits 20251101 on Blogger for an entry on academia.edu

F.W. J. Schelling (1775-1854) (PhD Edit): Satire Und Theology Version

Annecy, France-trekearth

F.W. J. Schelling (1775-1854) (PhD Edit) 

Preface

A section of my PhD, with a slight reformat on Blogger for an entry on academia.edu, 202510125.

Saturday, September 19, 2020 PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD

Panentheism 

German philosopher, F.W. J. Schelling [1]  (1845)(1936) reasons: ‘As there is nothing before or outside of God, he must contain within himself the ground of his existence.’[2]  He reasons God’s nature is inseparable from God and yet can be distinguished.[3]  Panentheism can reasonably be understood as an overarching view within many process theism approaches[4] which I have contrasted with my own views.[5]  Schelling, although not noted as a Christian theologian, within  Of Human Freedom states that all earthly creatures are dependent on God.[6]  If God ‘withdrew his power for an instant, man would cease to be.’[7]  There exists ‘nothing before or outside of God.’[8]  Shedd explains that God’s work of providence demonstrates he is the ‘most holy,’ ‘wise’ and ‘powerful’ as he governs his creatures and their actions.[9]  God works in the material universe with its nature and laws.[10]  Phillips explains that a Reformed view is that God has the freedom to act as he wants.[11]  This would be God’s sovereign providence, but Hume is skeptical of this concept.[12]  People throughout the world view certain evils, which may be rectified in other regions of the world or in the future, and understand these good events as being connected to general laws and the existence of a good deity.[13]  Hume suggests that these are superstitions,[14] and questions whether in many cases a ‘cause can be known but from its known effects?’[15]  The idea is then presented that if God is benevolent his providence should lead to a world without suffering and wickedness.[16] 

Predestination 

Schelling also presents a view on predestination[17] that human beings act today as they have always acted since ‘eternity’ and at the beginning of creation.[18]  Persons continue to act wickedly because in eternity human beings took a stand in ‘egotism and selfishness.’[19]  Within this view, passion and desire which can at times go wrong, represent freedom in the nature of human beings.[20]  All persons are born with a ‘dark principle of evil attached to them.’[21] Persons can be good, even with this darkness through ‘divine transmutation.’[22]  This non-traditional perspective would view human beings as predestined to commit evil[23] but allows for God to still work good within persons.[24] 

---

[1] Schelling lived (1775-1854).  Blackburn (1996: 341).

[2] Schelling (1845)(1936: 32). 

[3] Schelling (1845)(1936: 32). Schelling sought to deflect criticisms that he was a pantheist.  ‘Unity is of essence, but so is diversity.’  Gutmann (1845)(1936: xxxi). However, his comments make it possible that he had views which were perhaps panentheistic. Material things are dependent on God and yet independent. 

[4] Including that of Whitehead.  Nikkel (2003: 2-3). 

[5] My views are Reformed but not strictly within a certain camp such as Presbyterian or Baptist. I have primarily come to my Reformed views through MPhil and PhD research.

[6] Schelling (1845)(1936: 11).

[7] Schelling (1845)(1936: 11). Schelling is noted within the ‘Introduction’ to believe in a divine personality and denied that God’s personality was incomprehensible. Schelling did reason wisdom could be found in God. Gutmann (1845)(1936: xxv).

[8] Schelling (1845)(1936: 32).

[9] Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 527 Volume 1).  Frame (2002: 274).

[10] Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 528 Volume 1).

[11] Phillips (2005: 22).

[12] Hume (1779)(2004: 50).

[13] Hume (1779)(2004: 50).

[14] Hume (1779)(2004: 50).

[15] Hume (1779)(2004: 50).

[16] Hume (1779)(2004: 50).

[17] Schelling (1845)(1936: 66).

[18] Schelling  (1845)(1936: 66). Creation is not passive and is dynamic and in constant activity.  Gutmann (1845)(1936: xxiii).  This non-passive activity included rebellion within Schelling’s view.

[19] Schelling (1845)(1936: 66).

[20] Gutmann (1845)(1936: xxv).

[21] Gutmann (1845)(1936: xxv).

[22] Schelling (1845)(1936: 66).

[23] Schelling (1845)(1936: 66).

[24] Schelling (1845)(1936: 66).. Blackburn (1996: 341).

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996)  Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy,  Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

FRAME, JOHN M. (1999) ‘The Bible on the Problem of Evil: Insights from Romans 3:1-8,21-26; 5:1-5; 8:28-39’, IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 1, Number 33, October 11 to October 17, Fern Park, Florida, Third Millennium. 

FRAME, JOHN M. (2002) The Doctrine of God, P and R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey. 

GUTMANN, JAMES (1845)(1936) ‘Introduction’ in SCHELLING, F.W.J. (1845)(1936) Schelling, Of Human Freedom, Translated by James Gutmann, The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago. 

HUME, DAVID (1739-1740)(1973) ‘A Treatise of Human Nature’, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press. 

HUME, DAVID (1779)(2004) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Digireads.com/Neeland Media LLC, Lawrence, Kansas. 

NICKEL, DAVID H. (2006) The Varieties of Mystical Experience: Paul Tillich and William James, Philadelphia, Metanexus Institute. 

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.),  Atlanta, John Knox Press. 

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005)  The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis. 

SCHELLING, F.W.J. (1845)(1936) Schelling, Of Human Freedom, Translated by James Gutmann, The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago. 

WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH (1926) Religion in the Making, New York, The MacMillan Company.  

WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH (1927-1929)(1957)  Process and Reality, New York, The Free Press/MacMillan Publishing Company, Incorporated. 

WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH (1967)(1986) ‘Adventures of Ideas’, in Forest Wood JR., Whiteheadian Thought as a Basis for a Philosophy of Religion, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, University Press of America, Inc. 

Note 20251025: His distinction between the infinite and finite was not clear enough, from my reading. A biblical view is that the finite is dependent on the infinite, never the reverse.

Henri Blocher And Carl Henry On Christ as Remedy (PhD Edit): Satire Und Theology Version

Henri Blocher And Carl Henry On Christ as Remedy (PhD Edit)

Preface

Image is Red Cardinal Oil: by Caron Smed, Lake Country, British Columbia. Thank you, Caron!

A section of my PhD, with a slight reformat on Blogger for an entry on academia.edu, 202510125.

Saturday, September 19, 2020 PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD

Henri Blocher And Carl Henry On Christ as Remedy (PhD Edit)

Henri Blocher (1994) notes theodicy are failures in themselves and must have ideas within that square with Biblical revelation in order to be true and beneficial.[1]  I do not agree that all theodicy are failures in themselves,[2] but can grant a Christian theodicy needs the support of Scripture,[3] which connects the reader to the salvific work of Christ.[4]  As mentioned in Chapter One in my Doctorate, he explains that philosophical explanations have failed in dealing with the problem of evil.[5]  Although I somewhat disagree with this comment,[6] I can acknowledge philosophical theodicy does not take the place of effective practical theology that can assist a sufferer in having a true Christian religious experience. Carl Henry (1983), also noted in Chapter One, reasons that theistic arguments do not in themselves vindicate God,[7] and God’s revelation is required.[8]  In other words, through the study of Scripture and personal experience with God through revelation, the creator can be better understood,[9] even though he willingly allows evil.[10]  

July 10, 2013 

The understanding can be taken from the works of Blocher and Henry that even reasonable, logical successful theodicies and defences, and I favour a Reformed sovereignty approach, within the disciplines of Philosophy and Theology, still basically primarily deal with the theoretical. 

When I passed my Wales, Bangor MPhil thesis only degree it was determined by academic reviewers that I had reasonably and logically dealt with the problem of evil, primarily. When I had passed my Wales, Trinity Saint David, PhD thesis only degree it was determined by academic reviewers that I had reasonably and logically dealt with theodicy and problems of evil, primarily. In both cases I had adequately dealt with complex theories as well as practical and empirical theologies. 

In the non-academic, real world massive problems of logical evils, gratuitous evils, and what I deem subtle evils, as well as related sufferings, still exist on personal and corporate levels throughout the world, quite obviously, even if my theodicy is reasonable and for the most part, at least, sound. 

But it is the remedy, the atoning work of Christ and the resurrection from Scripture that Blocher and Henry are referring to. Yes, these are definitely and definitively mentioned throughout my two theses, and so in that regard I am in agreement with Blocher and Henry, my works although done via secular Universities in Wales were Biblically rooted. The remedy to the problem of evil is ultimately not in a correct theological or philosophical answer, but in the culminated work of Christ. The academic can however, assist to explain the remedy and related issues. 

---

[1] Blocher (1994: 84).

[2] Blocher (1994: 84).

[3] Henry (1983: 282). 

[4] Rowan Williams suggests Scripture becomes the Word in fidelity to Christ, as preaching becomes the Word in fidelity to Scripture, and Christ is himself the divine act as such. ‘God reveals himself through himself.’  Williams  (2007: 108-109). I agree, God reveals himself through the Holy Spirit inspiring Scripture and presenting Christ.

[5] Blocher (1994: 84).

[6] Blocher (1994: 84).

[7] Henry (1983: 282).

[8] Henry (1983: 282).

[9] Henry (1983: 282).

[10] Henry (1983: 282).

BLOCHER, HENRI. (1994) Evil and the Cross, Translated by David G. Preston, Leicester, InterVarsity Press. 

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books. 

HENRY, CARL (1983) God, Revelation and Authority: Volume 6: God Who Stands and Stays, Waco, Word Books. 

HENRY, CARL (1996) ‘Image of God’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (2000) Warranted Christian Belief, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

WILLIAMS, ROWAN (2000) On Christian Theology, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. 

WILLIAMS, ROWAN (2007) Wrestling with Angels, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids.

The Orthodox Study Bible: Matthew 5: 21-22-Non-exhaustive on murder in the heart: Satire Und Theology Version

The Orthodox Study Bible: Matthew 5: 21-22-Non-exhaustive on murder in the heart

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

Preface

My review, as a biblical Christian of the Reformed tradition, of this fine academic source, continues. This Orthodox source uses the New King James Version (NKJV). In this entry, I will take a non-exhaustive look at this text's approach to Mathew 5: 21-22.

Matthew 5: 21-22 

21 “You have heard that it was said to those [d]of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother [e]without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’[f] shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, [g]‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of [h]hell fire. 

d Matthew 5:21 in ancient times 

e Matthew 5:22 NU omits without a cause

f Matthew 5:22 Lit., in Aram., Empty head 

g Matthew 5:22 Gr. More 

h Matthew 5:22 Gr. Gehenna

Laridian Bible Software

Laridian, Inc. 1000 Creekbend Ct Marion, IA 52302

Cited 

NU-Text These variations from the traditional text generally represent the Alexandrian or Egyptian type of text described previously in "The New Testament Text." They are found in the Critical Text published in the twenty-seventh edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (N) and in the United Bible Societies’ fourth edition (U), hence the acronym, "NU-Text." 

In other words, in some of the earlier found Alexandrian and Egyptian manuscripts, NU means omits 'without a cause'.

KJV Today 

March 31, 2022 by Kane Dane, 2025 KJV Today, King James Version Bible

Cited

Angry "without a cause" in Matthew 5:22? "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." (Matthew 5:22, KJV) 

The word, "εικη", translated as "without a cause" in the KJV is omitted in modern translations. 

The KJV reading is supported by the majority of manuscripts, being found in Aleph (second correction), D, L, W, Theta, 0233, 33, the majority of Byzantine manuscripts and other authorities (Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed.). The earliest of these is W from the 4th/5th century. The omission is a minority reading, but is supported by three manuscripts that are earlier than W. These are: P64 (3rd century), Aleph (4th century) and B (4th century). However, the KJV reading is supported by Cyprian and Origen who lived in the 3rd century.

Further from that source:

Origen wrote: 

"Let us then see if in this matter, as in others, we can perceive the Saviour mingling the newthings that flow from His own breasts with the wine of the ancients, on the occasion when Mary and Joseph searching found Him in the Temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them and asking them questions, and all ...were astonished at His answers. But perhaps the glory o this figure is fulfilled in the place where, going up into a mountain, He taught the people and said: 'It was said to them of old, "Thou shalt not kill..." But I say to you, whosoever is angry with his brother without reason shall be held guilty'; and, 'It was said to them of old, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." But I say to you, whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Homilies on the Song of Songs, Book 1, translated in R P Lawson, Ancient Christian Writers: The Song of Songs, Commentary and Homilies, Issue 26 (New York: Newman Press: 1988)). 

KJV Today

Absent the phrase "without a cause" the Lord would be prohibiting all anger towards a brother, which is not biblical. Mark 3:5 describes our Lord being angry, saying, "And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other." As righteous anger is not sin, only anger "without a cause" is sin. 

For Balance

I can accept the theological view based on the majority text in regards to Matthew 5: 22 that just anger, at least for a time, does not with certainty lead to hatred and murder in the heart. In the notes, the Orthodoxy text states: 'Jesus forbids sinful anger'. (16). This is 'anger, or righteous indignation that is not sinful.' (16). In contrast, sinful anger is associated with murder. (16). 

Courson, in his commentary asks: 'Is anger ever right? Yes. (28). But it should be short term, as in to be angry and yet not sin. (Ephesians 4: 26). (28). It is not my theological leaning that the minority texts and manuscripts that omit 'without a cause' are implying or indicating a different theology here than the majority text and manuscripts. Agreeing with Courson, even just anger, if allowed to fester and continue can lead to murderous anger, if unchecked long enough, although again this is not with certainty, going to occur, as righteous anger may only exist. However, in context the anger described by Jesus Christ is murderous. As murderous anger, it does not necessarily need the objection of without cause in verse 21, because righteous anger is not mentioned in context of verse 21.

According to R.T France, this is the type of anger not measurable in a human court (119), those who have murder in the heart 'are no less culpable in the sight of God'. (119). The human heart is not measurable I agree, but it does not mean it is not detectable for any motives, humanly, whatsoever. But, ultimate judgement is up to God, in the Church, 2 Corinthians 5: 10 and humanity, perhaps the unregenerate only, in Revelation 20. 

Mounce explains that the Great White Throne judgment of Revelation 20 is not an arbitrary judgment of God but is based on the works of each person. Mounce (1990: 365-366). It is sign of the ultimate justice of God for all persons. Note this does not work against the atoning and resurrection work of Christ applied for salvation, rather Mounce is noting that those judged at Revelation 20 are judged for works. This leads some scholars to reason this is a judgment for those outside of Christ, in contrast to 2 Corinthians 5: 10. However, Mounce leans to Revelation 20 being a general judgment of all. 

eikh: Manuscripts for Matthew 5: 22

Greek New Testament.com 

Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus: eikh  yes 

Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus: eikh  yes 

Byzantine Majority: eikh yes 

Alexandrian eikh no

Hort and Westcott:  eikh no

---

Theology

Based on both majority and minority manuscript (s) readings, with Matthew 5: 21-22, documented and discussed, I reason there is a consistent theology where Jesus Christ condemns murder in the heart, connecting it to the sin of murder. If anger remains within the mind of a person, to avoid sin, it must be a just anger. Theologically, it should not have any murderous leanings. In other words, murder would not be an actual consideration if circumstances allowed for it.

My Reformed theology includes the idea that even within regeneration and continued sanctification, human thoughts are always tainted. The mind and body together as a unity, are only fully sanctified from sin at the resurrection. John Calvin makes the point in the Bondage and Liberation of the Will that purity is spoiled by a tiny blemish and implies that sin is included in every good work (in this present realm). Calvin (1543)(1996: 27). If this is indeed the case, even 'just anger', 'anger with a just cause', is still tainted by sin, even if not murderous thoughts. I reason that any type of anger should be prayerfully prayed against by the person experiencing it. Anger, theoretically, at least, can lead to negativity with other people. This negativity, in my mind, should generally be confined to prayer with God. It is better to approach other people as not angry.

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College.

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1540)(1973) Romans and Thessalonians, Translated by Ross Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CALVIN, JOHN (1550)(1978) Concerning Scandals, Translated by John W. Fraser, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books.

CALVIN, JOHN (1553)(1952) Job, Translated by Leroy Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1554)(1965) Genesis, Translated by John King, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

FRANCE, R.T. (1985) Matthew, Grand Rapids, IVP, Eerdmans.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

ORIGEN (238-244) (1988), 'Homilies on the Song of Songs, Book 1', translated in R P Lawson, Ancient Christian Writers: The Song of Songs, Commentary and Homilies, Issue 26 (New York: Newman Press: 1988)

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

This article revised on Blogger, 20251018, for an entry on academia,edu

Fallacy Of Accent: 'If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him': Satire Und Theology Version

Fallacy Of Accent

Preface

Photo: Portofino, Italy, 20221014, Facebook

Article originally published on Blogger 20151104, revised on Blogger for an entry on academia.edu 20251013.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

The review of the Pirie text continues. Note: A formal fallacy is concerned with presenting a logical form to avoid being fallacious, and an informal fallacy occurs when there are errors in reasoning with a premise (s) and conclusion. This entry deals with an informal fallacy.

Pirie

Cited

'The fallacy of accent defends for its effectiveness on the fact the meaning of statements can change, depending on the stress put on words. The accenting of words or phrases can give a meaning quite different from that intended, and can add implications which are not part of the literal meaning.' (31).

Example used

'Light your cigarette' (31).

a) Without accent it looks like an invitation. (31).
b) As opposed to lighting a tablecloth or something else. (31).
c) Instead of someone else. (31).
d) Instead of sticking it in your ear. (31).

The author notes that by changing the accent, the meaning can be changed. (31)

The large letter emphasis is mine, based on the Pirie examples...

'Light your cigarette', reads like an invitation or instruction.

''Light your CIGARETTE', reads as if an instruction to light the cigarette instead of something else.

'Light YOUR cigarette' read like an instruction to light your own cigarette and not another's.

'LIGHT your cigarette' reads as an invitation, instead of sticking it in your ear.

The author states: 'The fallacy lies with the additional implications introduced by emphasis. (32).

For this website context, that being philosophical theology, philosophy of religion, philosophy and Bible, this following statement from Pirie is relevant and profound:

'Your most widespread use of the fallacy of accent can be to discredit opponents by quoting them with an emphasis they never indented'. (32). He notes that Richelieu needed 'six lines by which to hang an honest man.' (32).

Cardinal Richelieu of France

I reason he is meaning Cardinal Richelieu of France. This would be a good historical example where Christianity was politicized and did not closely follow the Gospel of Jesus Christ and his disciples, the Apostles and scribes which through divine revelation promoted Gospel truth. 

The use of accent in a fallacious manner can twist words for the purpose of a lie. One should pay special attention to the educated and elite, whether in a political, corporate, religious or other context when he or she may be using the fallacy of accent to persuade the masses.

Oxford Reference.com 

Oxford Essential Quotations (5 ed.) Edited by: Susan Ratcliffe 

Publisher: Oxford University Press Published online: 2017

Current Online Version: 2017DOI: 10.1093/acref/9780191843730.001.0001eISBN: 9780191843730 

Cited

'Cardinal Richelieu 1585–1642 French cleric and statesman

If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. attributed'

Adam Smith Institute 

Cited 

'Cardinal Richelieu is remembered for making France into a centralized state by building up the power of the crown and weakening that of the nobles. He used brutal methods to do so, building up a network of spies and informers, having the rivals and opponents of his power executed, and banning political discussion in public bodies. His reputation was forever cast by Alexandre Dumas in “The Three Musketeers,” who portrayed him as a ruthless, power-hungry and cynical ruler. He will be remembered for his famous observation, “If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.” And he did have quite a few people hanged.'

---

But of course the masses can use the fallacy as well.

Aristotle

This fallacy was noted by Aristotle. 

The Internet Classics Archive: On Sophistical Refutations By Aristotle: Translated by W. A. Pickard-Cambridge (circa 350 BC)

Cited

'An argument depending upon accent it is not easy to construct in unwritten discussion; in written discussions and in poetry it is easier. Thus (e.g.) some people emend Homer against those who criticize as unnatural his expression to men ou kataputhetai ombro. For they solve the difficulty by a change of accent, pronouncing the ou with an acuter accent. Also, in the passage about Agamemnon's dream, they say that Zeus did not himself say 'We grant him the fulfilment of his prayer', but that he bade the dream grant it. Instances such as these, then, turn upon the accentuation.'

---

Zeus stating something differs from Zeus stating that a dream stated something.

Accent fallacy relies on unclear, unconcise, emphasis and tone presented. This can be verbal or written.

There are various related fallacies, but...

Amphiboly was a related fallacy mentioned by Aristotle. It uses ambiguous, unclear, unconcise syntax and grammar. This can be verbal or written.

--- 

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Jonathan Edwards (PhD Edit): Satire Und Theology Version

New Zealand-Dean Hintz

Jonathan Edwards (PhD Edit)

Photo is from the Green Dragon, where The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit films have been made.

Preface

A previous article linked below, was also concerning Jonathan Edwards and some of that material ended up in the PhD thesis. There is a version of this on academia.edu. 

Thursday, August 31, 2006 Jonathan Edwards and Libertarian Free Will

This article is also revised on Blogger for a version on academic.edu. The article presents the PhD thesis material where I cited Edwards. This is selective and non-exhaustive.

PhD & MPhil

Saturday, September 19, 2020 PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD 

Sovereignty and Providence

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758)(1729)(2006) writes that God has the power to bestow upon anyone of his creatures good, evil, or indifference for the greater good.[1]  This sovereign control is accepted despite the obvious problem of evil occurring in God’s creation.[2]  Attempts to harmonize strong concepts of God’s divine control over his creation, with the apparent corrupt nature of what he has made in regard to the problem of evil, will be described within this thesis as sovereignty theodicy.[3]  In Law of Nature, Edwards  (1731-1733)(2006) explains that providence is the means by which God governs the world as the supreme judge of the universe.[4]  Reichenbach notes that providence is how God guides and cares for his creation.[5]  He further reasons that God on one hand possesses wisdom in order to direct his creation within his plans, and on the other hand has the power by which he attempts to implement his plans.[6]  Reichenbach deduces that God’s providential plans allow for significant human freedom and choices to occur.[7]

Free Will And Determinism

Edwards thinks there is a major difficulty within libertarian concepts concerning free will.[8]  If the human will determines the will and resulting choices, since every choice must have a cause, then a chain is established where a will and choice is determined by a preceding will and choice. Therefore, if the will determines its own free acts, then every free act of will and choice is determined by a preceding act of will and choice. If a preceding act of will also be of free choice, then that too was self-determined.[9]  What Edwards is stating is that in the act of causing a free choice (choice1), the cause of that choice was also made freely (choice2), and the cause of that choice was made freely (choice3) and so on. 

This theological concept of Edwards would tie into the philosophical concept of vicious regress[10] since with a regress it could not be determined what caused a human choice initially, because every free choice was caused by a previous free choice. Edwards instead reasoned that human choices were a result of human nature originally created by and within God’s will. God therefore wills all things, and is the primary cause of all actions.[11]  I reason human actions, and any angelic or demonic actions would be accepted  as a secondary cause[12] in order to avoid concepts of hard determinism, where only God or the first cause would be morally responsible for acts.[13] 

Blackburn counters that some form of metaphysical libertarianism[14] postulates that free choice is not causally determined, but is also not random.[15]  It is suggested that an agency situated outside of human nature,[16] in regard to making human choice, is possible but likely ‘fantasy.’[17]  It appears human choice should be traced back to human nature.[18] 

Edwards writes that God controls all things.[19]  The sovereignty approach can present the remedy for the problem of evil in a practical sense, not just primarily philosophically.[20]  The approach needs to focus on the idea that the triune God consummates his Kingdom and gives things meaning.  It seems rather meaningless for a Christian to readily accept a notion of God willing all things for a greater good within a theological system when the greater good is not vividly practically explained within the system, at least in general ultimate terms.[21]

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. 

AUGUSTINE (398-399)(1992) Confessions, Translated by Henry Chadwick, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia. 

AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia. 

AUGUSTINE (426)(1958) The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books. 

AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. 

AUGUSTINE (427b)(1997) On Christian Teaching, Translated by R.P.H. Green, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996)  Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy,  Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html 

CALVIN, JOHN (1540)(1973) Romans and Thessalonians, Translated by Ross Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1550)(1978) Concerning Scandals, Translated by John W. Fraser, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books.

CALVIN, JOHN (1553)(1952) Job, Translated by Leroy Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CALVIN, JOHN (1554)(1965) Genesis, Translated by John King, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust. 

CHADWICK, HENRY (1992) ‘Introduction’, in Confessions, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

http://edwards.yale.edu/archive/documents/page?document_id=10817&search_id=&source_type=edited&pagenumber=1

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas. Jonathanedwards.com.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids,  Zondervan Publishing House.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

REICHENBACH, BRUCE (1986) Predestination and Free Will, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

STACE, W.T. (1952)(1976) Religion and the Modern Mind, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds.), Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers. 

---

[1] Edwards (1729)(2006: 414).

[2] Edwards (1729)(2006: 414).

[3] Feinberg (1994: 124-143).

[4] Edwards (1731-1733)(2006: 553).

[5] Reichenbach (1986: 115).

[6] Reichenbach (1986: 115).

[7] Reichenbach (1986: 118).

[8] Which would correspond to modern concepts of libertarian free will and incompatibilism.

[9] Edwards (1754)(2006 2.1: 1-1-2). 

[10] Blackburn (1996: 324).

[11] Edwards (1754)(2006 2.1: 1-1-2). 

[12] Pojman (1996: 596).  Stace (1952)(1976: 29). 

[13] Pojman and Stace both state a secondary cause must freely commit acts in order to be significantly morally accountable.  Pojman (1996: 596).  Stace (1952)(1976: 29). 

[14] Blackburn (1996: 218).

[15] Blackburn (1996: 218).

[16] It appears Blackburn is discussing a human agency.

[17] Blackburn (1996: 218).

[18] Edwards (1754)(2006 2.1: 1-1-2).  Blackburn (1996: 218).  Within my Reformed world view I reason God created this nature and simultaneously influences and wills all human choice.

[19] Edwards (1729)(2006: 414).

[20] This is where empirical theology can be beneficial.

[21] I can admit this can be a weakness within sometimes overly philosophical Reformed approaches.